Eating disturbances in preadolescent girls: Protective and risk factors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although numerous eating disorder risk factors have been identified, protective factors have been underresearched (Shisslak & Crago, 2001). Moreover, despite calls by prevention researchers, our understanding of disordered eating during preadolescence is limited (Smolak & Levine, 2001). The objective of the present study was to identify potential protective and risk factors for eating disturbances in preadolescent girls. The sample consisted of 381 preadolescent girls in grades 4--6. Participants completed a battery of questionnaires assessing such constructs as disordered eating attitudes and behaviours, self-esteem, emotional autonomy, attributional style, coping strategies, perceived social pressures for thinness, parental care/overcontrol, and peer support. Potential protective and risk factors were evaluated using person-focussed and variable-focussed designs. The person-focussed design strategy was borrowed from the child psychopathology resilience literature (Masten, 2001), and consisted of comparisons of groups of participants with different risk/outcome profiles. The variable-focussed component consisted of a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses. The results of the person-focussed phase were of questionable validity due to problems with the classification system. However, multiple regression findings indicated that increased self-esteem and decreased pressure for thinness from media, peers, and parents were associated with decreased disordered eating. There was some preliminary support for the association between coping and disordered eating. These variables may be potential risk/protective factors for disordered eating in preadolescent girls, and future research should evaluate whether they are causally linked using longitudinal designs.Dept. of Psychology. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2002 .W35. Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 64-06, Section: B, page: 2945. Adviser: Cheryl Thomas. Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2002.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".